Ending “cheap booze” is an attack on property-rights of retailers….

It’s becoming clear that this “coalition” government is no better than, and in many respects a worse trampler on liberty than, “New Labour”. At least you knew where you were with Labour. They hated everyone except their chosen client-groups, were cheerfully honest and up-front about it, and stated publicly that their objective was to screw and oppress everyone else. In the end, perhaps it’s too late and the British people don’t deserve liberty any more.

6 responses to “Ending “cheap booze” is an attack on property-rights of retailers….”

This twaddle still sounds like minimum pricing to me, no matter how they dress it up.I think the EU will soon be involved. Much as I hate the scum of the EU they are useful idiots (as the CIA say) from time to time.
You are correct about the coalition slime tho’.

Well David, this was why I said before the general election that nobody should vote Tory in the hope of a “lesser evil”. There is not an iota of liberalism in these “Tories”. They are entirely Progressive, entirely statist, entirely authoritarian, and entirely the kind of people who would steal the chocolate biscuits off your plate then tell you it’s to improve your health as they munch them.

I voted UKIP. I said back then, at least that way I wouldn’t feel ashamed to have voted for more GramscoFabianNaziPuritans[1]. The people making policy are now independent of the parties, and all the major parties are beholden to this new priesthood of pressure groups, NGOs, academics etc etc.

Revolution is next tuesday. Bring a packed lunch, it may take all day.

“They [New Labour] hated everyone except their chosen client-groups, were cheerfully honest and up-front about it, and stated publicly that their objective was to screw and oppress everyone else.”
A bit like the Conservatives then :)

Ending cheap booze will not make any difference in the long run. Same as banning or rationing a said item or substance does not really make a difference it just drives a ‘black market culture’, you only have to look at the ‘recreational’ drug problem – it is in a social cultural context that drinking to excess and being a public nuisance that should be looked at.
If someone cannot hold their liquor then that is their fault and they should be made to pay the price society deems fit to administer: http://efgd3833.wordpress.com/

Other countries such as Portugal have tried the decriminalisation of certain drugs it and found it helped both the druggie and society. Of course there are problems with such a system, but the arguement to either ban, increase prises to an ‘unnatural market level’, impinging on the retailers property rights and preventing the market from setting its own equilibrium is based upon an assumption that it will reduce ‘considerably’ the drinking problem.
There of course will be some impact:
“The extent that drinkers place others at greater risk of injury (an “external” cost), that should be reflected in the tax rate, for at least two reasons. First, it is only fair that drinkers should compensate the public for the external costs of their choices.
Second, if alcohol prices do not reflect the full social costs of consumption
(including the external costs), then consumers will drink too much, in the technical sense that at the margin their drinks will be worth less to them than they cost.”http://www.breitlinks.com/alcoholawareness/AlcAwarePDFs/EconomicsAlcAbuse.pdf

Personally I think the coalition government of the Dave & Nick Show is using a price control that is not helpful or beneficial to anybody.

im reading Liberal Fascism by jonah goldberg atm and this priesthood of unaccountable unstoppable policy wonks is all part of the left/fabian/progressive plan. they are the technocracy. HG Wells’ ‘Liberal (in the american sense) Fascisti.’
at best british political parties may be able to claim they are social democrats and nothing more, unfortunately the truth seems to be far worse.